Join the Conversation

Opinion: Applying six sigma to Rebel name

Paul R. Frail
Published 5:34 a.m. ET April 7, 2017

Buy Photo

South Burlington students and residents applaud comments from Bob Walsh, long resident and teacher, after he thanked the South Burlington School Board for retiring the "Rebel" name during their meeting Wednesday night, Feb. 1, 2017.(Photo: RYAN MERCER/FREE PRESS)Buy Photo

In business, lean six sigma has been adapted from the scientific method to help companies generate value from their investments and minimize monetary waste. It is a simple process: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control. The method works under a variety of conditions and can help deliver measurable results with maximum value in investment.

As South Burlington’s School Board begins to rebrand the Rebel name at an estimated cost of over $170,000, taxpayers (investors) should reflect on whether the process was used correctly in that decision and whether more viable and less expensive alternatives exist.

Define is the first and most critical phase that should occupy 90-plus percent of your time. If the problem is not defined correctly, it’s impossible to produce a solution. The “Rebel” debate never left the define phase. Although many opinions and personal testimony have been stated in public forums, no concise and targeted problem statement has been presented to the public. Problems typically have many layers which need to be identified and handled separately. Therefore, a committee of key stake holders consisting of residents, students and faculty encompassing all perspectives should have been formed to complete the problem defining exercise.

The School Board did perform a survey with the students, which is a great first step in the measure phase. Surveys are momentary snapshots. In this case, it determined the starting point from which to improve. During the measure phase, a reliable measuring system that generates data is developed. When collected properly, that data is unbiased by opinion and emotion. Unfortunately, a single survey is insufficient. At a minimum, four yearly data points are needed to develop a trend that encompasses the school cycle time. This would allow one to understand how the results change with age and time in the school. The survey also lacked the necessary segmentation questions for conjoint analysis: developing correlations between cause and effect.

The analyze phase is where there is the opportunity to test assumptions, validate them, or test new assumptions. Questions should have been asked that broke down the data into more categories: general response, grade, ethnicity, activity involvement (sports, extracurricular, or nothing at all), happiness in the community, comfort level of talking openly, etc.

When data is collected in this way, it should be clear that very targeted and cost effective initiatives can be focused on smaller (but no less important) and more manageable concerns of the student body. This may differ greatly from stake holders’ initial opinions. Expanding the survey to neighboring districts determines if the results are driven locally or touch on broader issues. Data is very powerful. Without complete, unbiased data, wasteful decisions are often made.

Improve is where you have defined the problem, you know where you stand today, and have developed a plan to create change. No attempt was made to improve a specifically defined problem.

Next to define, the control phase is most critical. A control plan allows you to identify when something is wrong and immediate intervention is needed. A good control plan has the necessary checks and balances as well as who is responsible. To date, no control plan has been offered by the School Board, only costs associated with their decision. Without a clear control plan (policy), what happens the next time someone is uncomfortable with the school moniker? Without a viable plan, the district runs the risk of having to change the moniker every year or whenever someone becomes uncomfortable with it during the year.

The lean six sigma process works when all agree to follow it. If it were followed by the School Board, there is no doubt South Burlington would be in a different place. Before allowing the school board to spend more than $170,000 of tax payer money, taxpayers should question whether the necessary due diligence was done.

No business would spend money on such a change without performing their due diligence. Why shouldn’t South Burlington taxpayers (investors) do the same? Ask yourself if the school board is wasting or generating value with your money. Are they spending money to solve a problem or make one disappear? Voice your concern, send a message and vote.